next time someone bashes ACA

[strawberries]

Send them to me. I would love to write President Obama and let him know he has probably saved my son's life

My son recently got health insurance, and then got into a car accident. (he is fine) However; they did a CT and found something on his kidney. Apparently he has hyperechoic renal cell carcinoma, they will know more after his MRI. I have tried to do some reading on it, but didn't learn much. If someone knows something about RCC please let me know. I do know it measures 3.7 x 2.7 cm. again any info would be grateful

My point is, had he not got health insurance we never would have known he had RCC. Hopefully it was caught soon enough.

[merrily]

1. Wow What a series of events.

I am so sorry all of that happened, but I am glad he is insured. I am so sorry I have no info, but the doctor is probably your best source of info anyway.

Very best wishes and good thoughts.

[zipplewrath]

2. So you got yours

I'm happy for you, and for your son. I also know there are millions of people that DIDN'T get covered by ACA, even more when the Medicaid section was made voluntary (for the states that is). I also know many people that now have insurance and still can't afford the copay for the CT scan. So yeah, I'm a bit pissed off that the ACA left those people in the woods. And you realize that 50% of the folks that got support from the exchanges already were eligible for federal support for health insurance but didn't realize it. Were you one of those?

But do write Obama, he could probably use the letter.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Your post is seething with hate and resentment. Why? You are blaming the WRONG

people. Blame those Republican governors who refuse to expand Medicaid, thus making the premiums more affordable so that people can get coverage.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And yes, I hope OP does write and send that letter because the president absolutely SHOULD be commended.

[JoePhilly]

4. +1000

[zipplewrath]

7. I do to some extent

The two largest "blames" for the current situation are the economic downturn, and the fact that several states, including two of the largest, don't participate in the Medicaid option. Without those two, we'd be better off, but still well short.

And there's no "seething resentment" much less hate. You're projecting. But let's not pretend that he ACA didn't fall well short of promised (at least so far) and that there are literally millions of people, many the most needy, that basically got nuttin'. And even those that got INSURANCE still aren't getting CARE.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. ??? ...

The two largest "blames" for the current situation are the economic downturn,

This is related how?

Maybe some facts might move you:

Percentage of Uninsured Adults (2007, start of the down-turn) ... 16.0

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/one-six-adults-without-health-insurance.aspx


Percentage of uninsured Adults (2014) ... 13.9

http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/Number-of-Uninsured-Adults-Continues-to-Fall.html

[zipplewrath]

46. And in 2010?

It went up for a few years after the down turn. It has reversed here basically in the last year or so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Sp the ACA is working, right? eom.

[zipplewrath]

50. For who?

The millions that were excluded? Not so much.
The millions that have insurance and can't afford to use it? Not so much.
Those stuck in uncooperative states? Not so much.

But hey, go run victory laps while ignoring those who couldn't even get in the race.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. For the many more Millions ...

that ARE included.

The millions that have insurance and can't afford to use it? Not so much.

So we trash a system that is working based on unverified, un-established, anecdotal "I have a friend that knows a guy that told her ..." evidence?

Those stuck in uncooperative states? Not so much.

So your beef is NOT with the ACA, but with the SCOTUS and the voters of those stuck in "uncooperative states" ... in that order.

But hey ... go ride your rainbow farting pony around the single-payer track, while ignoring the good that the ACA is doing.

[zipplewrath]

59. The OP was an anecdotal reference

Currently there are roughly 2% more people insured now than in 2007. That's not a lot of "change". Even I expected more like 7%. Upwards of 12% were predicted.

My "beef" is with all the people that the ACA left out, explicitly, and all the people that ended up getting left out, not to mention all those people who are now forced to buy insurance, but can't afford to use it.

This is what you call my "rainbow farting pony". Sound like a guy that can afford his health care.
Guess you got yours.

[pnwmom]

57. Why don't you blame the Republican-led states refusing the Medicaid expansion

instead of the people who supported it -- for all states?

The ACA was passed over vehement Republican opposition, and we couldn't get anything stronger over the hurdle of the filibuster. Blame the obstructionists, not the people who fought for the ACA.

[zipplewrath]

58. This isn't about blame

We're not in the BOG here, this isn't about blame.

This is about the effectiveness of the ACA and who is being left out.

[pnwmom]

62. The ACA is effective, when it is followed. The states that chose to reject the free Medicaid funds

are the cause of some people being left out -- not the ACA or its supporters.

[zipplewrath]

65. The ACA explicitly stated who would not be covered

There is very explicit language in the ACA explaining who will not be eligible for federal subsidies of insurance. It is basically those not poor enough for Medicaid, and too poor for subsidies.

That is a clear "feature" of the ACA.

Furthermore, it addresses health INSURANCE, not health CARE. That also is a clear feature of the ACA.

[pnwmom]

68. You are wrong about that. There is no language in the ACA

that makes a group of people eligible for neither Medicaid nor subsidies. It was the Rethugs who rejected the ACA Medicaid expansion -- and the SCOTUS who allowed them to do it -- that put some people in this predicament.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. Well, that's not exactly correct ...

the ACA, specifically, excluded undocumented residents from both the expanded Medicaid and the subsidies.

But I don't think undocumented residents were being discussed, above (... until, of course, this post gets read).

[pnwmom]

71. Right. And this Ebola problem should make people rethink that. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Very true ...

But there is no way the ACA would have passed if it had included coverage for the undocumented ... it would have been the smart and humanitarian thing to do ... But American politics, rarely does the smart, humanitarian thing, even as it does something good.

[zipplewrath]

74. Yes, there is

It is the language that exempts one from having to pay the penalty/tax for not having insurance.

[pnwmom]

79. Please cite the language that you are talking about. n/t

[zipplewrath]

82. You don't know how to use Google?

Exemptions from the payment

You may qualify for an exemption from the penalty for not being insured if:
•You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
•The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income•You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit (PDF)
•You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
•You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
•You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
•You’re incarcerated (either detained or jailed), and not being held pending disposition of charges
•You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.
•You qualify for a hardship exemption

Basically there is a limit to how much of a subsidy the ACA is willing to pay, so if that won't lower the price on the exchange to 8% of your household income, then you aren't required to have insurance. Of course you may also not qualify for Medicaid.

[pnwmom]

83. So? It's still not the Dems fault that the Rethugs prevented the Medicaid expansion.

The people covered by the language you highlighted are the low-income people who SHOULD be covered by Medicaid but, since they aren't, would have to buy unsubsidized insurance that cost more than 8% of their income. But it isn't this language that is hurting these people; it's the Rethug governors who prevented the Medicaid expansion.

With everyone but these eligible-for-Medicaid-expansion people (and some high earners), the subsidies do reduce the payment on silver plans to no more than 8%.

[zipplewrath]

85. No

There is a gap between those people that will be eligible for Medicaid, and those that will get subsidies to bring them under the 8%. If there weren't, this exemption wouldn't have needed to exist since when ACA was written the Medicaid expansion was presumed to not be voluntary.

[pnwmom]

86. No, there isn't. That's only the case for people who would fit into the Medicaid expansion.

This exemption was put in because of what was viewed as a slight chance that a state or two might not jump through the hoops in time to get the Medicaid expansion, but the people who drafted the law never anticipated that so many states would turn down the free funds.

[zipplewrath]

89. Not according to Kaiser

The Kaiser Family foundation has been a fairly solid supporter of ACA and they don't seem to agree with you:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/september/03/faq-on-individual-insurance-mandate-aca.aspx

Individuals who cannot afford coverage because the cost of premiums exceed 8 percent of their household income or those whose household incomes are below the minimum threshold for filing a tax return are exempt. People experiencing certain hardships, including those who would have been eligible for Medicaid under the health law's new rules but whose states chose not to expand their programs, also are exempt.

"...are ALSO exempt". As in "IN ADDITION TO" people who don't get medicaid.

This was fairly extensively discussed when this was being passed. There was no doubt about the fact that there were going to be people in this category.

[riversedge]

78. yes, the aca is health Insurance reform....

I have lots of gripes about it also.

Our gov did not expand Medicaid. then he and his Repug buddies made it so those that do qualify for Badger-care (Wisconsin's medicaid program) only at 100 % of the Fed poverty level vs 138 as specified by aca. While many get substitutes--many can not afford the insurance at all.

anyway, I know lots who got kicked of Badgercare only to be put on aca (several have the lowest level of purchase___??? Bronze??) with large co-pays. they seldom see the doc even when very sick cause of the large co-pays. Yes, the health insurance 'reform' does leave out so many. Any states such as ours are double hit.

[pnwmom]

80. That isn't the fault of the ACA. It's the fault of your Rethug governor who turned down free Federal

funds to pay for the Medicaid expansion.

[riversedge]

94. yes, it is. Basically, our gov

did not take the implementation $$ either--so little push/funds to set up exchanges, get the exchanges. Wisconsin rates are much higher than MN--a state next to us with comparable demographics. We got screwed by Walker and his Repug legislature.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. I'm projecting? Really? Why would I be projecting? I'm not the one who is misdirecting anger at the

wrong people or those who do not deserve it.

Please write your governor and the other governors who refuse to expand Medicaid in your/their respective states.

Your response to the OP was mean-spirited and uncalled for.

[zipplewrath]

47. I'm not a psychic

I don't know why you are projecting. Maybe you should seek help to find out why. I was just answering a request of the OP. What are you doing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. LS isn't "projecting" ...

ve you noticed the number of other people that all have said similar things about your response being mean-spirited and misdirected? Are they projecting as well?

You have a negative impression of the ACA ... and, from ehat I've seen, have since its inception; but that does not excuse your approach.

Just saying ... (and hoping you will self-reflect).

[zipplewrath]

51. Probably

I was actually referring to specific comments he made.

Some one asked me to respond so I did. How was that wrong?

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Nevermind, you keep doing ...

your mean-spirited you ... that everyone (well, most) seems to see (and have commented on), except you.

[zipplewrath]

61. Have your victory lap

Go ahead and keep doing your victory laps.

Don't forget to wave at those who didn't get theirs as you go by.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Actually, (to extend the analogy) ...

it's not a victory lap ... its driving to the NEXT victory, single-payer.

[zipplewrath]

75. I'm afraid you've wandered into pit road

There's no reason to expect that this will lead to single payer anymore than Medicare did, or Medicaid.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Liberal pundits, both, economists and policy folsk, disagree ...

and then, you might want to google: "Vermont" and "Single-payer."

Thank you, ACA!

[zipplewrath]

91. I don't have to

I read. I know what's going on. We've had larger states try it a flame out. If California goes this way it could be a different story.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Of course you don't ...

facts tend to make opinion, less persuasive. The fact is, the liberal commentarie have indicated that the ACA's provisions have set the stage for states to experiment with single payer ... and vermont is doing just that. Their experiment is not a flameout; but rather, a work in progress.

[zipplewrath]

100. It was in work prior to ACA

Time will tell if the ACA helps or hurts or matters at all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. Okay ...

It was in work prior to ACA

So was time travel.

I am disengaging because it is clear you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Have a great day/life.

[zipplewrath]

113. All I'm saying

People want to claim that the ACA is some sort of pathway to single payer. But I just don't see the evidence. Medicare has been around for 50 years and we aren't particularly closer. Potentially we are worse off because it is constantly used as a bogeyman for "how bad" the government would do things (but don't touch my Medicare). Folks want to point to Vermont, but that effort predates ACA and in fact Obama fought to make sure that the ACA wouldn't obstruct it. The plan that Obama started from was basically a version of a GOP plan that was intended to obstruct the Clinton plan that was a whole lot closer to single payer than this.

So I hear the claim that ACA is some sort of magic path to single payer, but the evidence is sorely lacking.

But you might enjoy things better over at the BOG.

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. You almost had me believing you were going to engage reasonably ...

then:

But you might enjoy things better over at the BOG.

Have a good day.

[zipplewrath]

115. Hey, you're the one that finished on a snark.

I's a just sayin' good bye.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. You need to look up what the word PROJECTION means

Honestly, because you do not know. Again, your response to the OP was mean spirited and nonsensical. Others in this thread agree with me, not you. Are they wrong too? I think not.

Hey, just admit that you were wrong. We all mess up sometimes. A little humility doesn't hurt. Admit you were wrong and mean-spirited. Apologize to the OP for that.

Then, research the ACA, expansion of Medicaid and why Republican governors refuse to expand the program and help people in their own state.

[zipplewrath]

106. half a dozen agree with you and I'm wrong

You might want to look up the word "narcissist".

I was not coming from hate nor anger, but that was from where the response came. That's what makes it projecting. i.e. projecting ones own emotions upon another. For comparison, one might want to compare the OP's response to the gentlemen whose brother wasn't currently covered.

[grahamhgreen]

76. Your post should be about how we will fix this in the future with Single Payer, rather than

assigning blame. This way we can all work together to destroy the businesses that suck profit from funds that would be better spent on care, in my view.

it's not about blame, it's about solutions

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. I've made countless statements in the past

in the past in support of single payer. That goes without saying. That was not the subject of the OP. This was not about assigning blame. Indeed, I was responding to someone who was doing just that!

The bottom line is that while the ACA is nowhere near perfect, where the program has done well in terms of helping people, we should acknowledge and celebrate that. Where the program has contributed to saving lives, that should be regarded as something positive.

Where the ACA can be improved, for example, by expanding Medicaid, should be highlighted and called out. If there are forces out there who are deliberately obstructing the improvement of the program, that's not about "assigning blame". That's about telling the truth!!

[CakeGrrl]

81. Thank you for this reply.

It's interesting to see the seething anger at this POTUS exposed.

How about the REAL enemy, the nasty GOP who TRULY wouldn't mind if the poor died off - and are the ones actually trying to make that happen legislatively?

[Kber]

5. Wow

I realize the ACA didn't go as far as you (or I) would like, but to dump one someone who it did help?

And Taking out your resentment on a parent facing the serious illness of their child? Really?

Look, the US healthcare situations has been fucked us for generations and was getting worse fast. Obama didn't fix it all in one go, but he was the first president to do something, anything, to significantly change the system for the better. Not for the best, but for the better.

Hope you "get yours" too someday. We all deserve reliable access to quality health care.

[zipplewrath]

6. For various values of significant

I didn't "dump" on any one. They asked for me to be "sent to them". So I went. And I expressed happiness that they were helped. I was merely pointing out why their happiness didn't even begin to cover the myriad of reasons that people might "dump" on the ACA.

And by the by, right now, there are not significantly larger numbers of people covered after ACA than when Obama took office. Now, that should be changing here as we move forward, because a big chunk of that is due to the people that lost it when they lost their jobs in the economic down turn. And of course it doesn't help that several states, including two large ones, are not participating in the Medicaid option.

But in the end, that's what many are speaking of. For all the hype, the ACA didn't accomplish (at least not yet) nearly what was promised. And even what was promised was way less that what was needed. It was suppose do be a BFD, but so far it's turned out to be a much smaller one.

So I'm glad that some got something, but it doesn't really change the fact that many of the neediest were left out in the cold.

[pnwmom]

60. Your information is wrong. The CBO says that under the ACA, 20 million Americans

will have gained coverage this year, including more than 12 million who were previously uninsured.

The numbers would have been much higher if so many Rethug-led states hadn't rejected the Medicaid expansion. You should be blaming them, not the Dems, if the ACA hasn't lived up to all of its promise.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2014/jul/coverage-under-affordable-care-act-progress-report

The authors estimate that, overall, 20 million Americans have gained coverage as of May 1 under the ACA, with many of them previously uninsured. The CBO projects that the law will decrease the number of uninsured by 12 million this year and by 26 million by 2017. Early polls show that the proportion of U.S. adults lacking health insurance has dropped significantly since the third quarter of 2013.

[zipplewrath]

64. Different comparison

You're comparing to 2010.

In 2007 there were roughly 16% uninsured. It's now down to just under 14%. It may be headed towards 10% by 2017. That would barely reach the minimal 7% increased promised by the ACA. No where near the 12% predicted by the most optimistic. And none of these numbers address the "insured but still can't afford health CARE".

The goal was universal health CARE. We didn't even get half way to universal health INSURANCE.

[pnwmom]

69. Wrong. The link I provided compared the numbers this year to those of one year ago, not 2010.

Please provide links to your information.

[zipplewrath]

73. Same difference

The point is that you're comparing to the wrong data. The data in use at the time of writing of the ACA was the 2007/08 time frame. We're only 2% below those numbers.

[pnwmom]

84. You still haven't provided any link to support your claim. n/t

[zipplewrath]

92. It was just in all the papers

The welcome news on health insurance coverage was tempered by the fact that private coverage continued to erode. Government programs — such as Medicaid for the poor — picked up the slack, resulting in the overall reduction in people without health insurance. The uninsured rate also fell to 15.3 percent, down from 15.8 percent in 2006.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26404454/ns/business-us_business/t/census-number-uninsured-dropped/#.VDcnWmMoK70

I was rounding up to 16%, but in 2007 it was actually at a local low of 15.3%

[pnwmom]

95. That article talks about rates 7 years ago. Nothing to do with the ACA. n/t

[zipplewrath]

102. That was the original basis of comparison

When the ACA was passed, they were comparing the performance to those statistics. When it was suggested that we would lower the uninsured rate by 7 - 12% that was the basis of comparison. Switching to comparisons to 2010 or later is moving the goal posts.

[pnwmom]

117. That's because that was the most recent statistic -- THEN. It makes no sense to compare

the ACA numbers this year to numbers 7 years ago -- before the great recession -- when we now know what the numbers were last year, in the final pre-ACA year.

[zipplewrath]

118. That's moving the goal posts

The basis for passing it was getting us upwards of 93+% coverage. You can't move the goal posts and say that now the goal is 87%. The economic downturn should have only affected HOW they got covered. i.e. whether it was employers, exchanges or medicaid. But that's not happening. And really at this rate we'll never get to 95%, which was the more optimistic prediction.

[pnwmom]

120. And that is still the goal. But no one EVER (except you maybe) thought that was supposed to

be all accomplished in the first year. The CBO is projecting large increases in the next few years, as more and more people become aware, as the exchanges continue to improve, and as the penalties go up.

[zipplewrath]

123. No one was advertising that after year 1 it'd be only 2% decrease.

If they had, it never would have passed. You're moving the goal posts.

[pnwmom]

126. It's a 23% decrease -- at least. This was written last April,

and even more people are insured since then.



http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html

"Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent."

There were 40.7 uninsured before, but there is now a net gain of 9.3 people with coverage. 9.3 is 23% of 40.7, so that means there has been a 23% decrease in uninsured.

[zipplewrath]

129. Again, you're moving the goal posts

It's a decrease since 2013, not since the ACA was passed.

[pnwmom]

131. You've got things exactly backward. If you go back to when the ACA was first passed,

there are even more people newly covered, because millions of young people under the age of 26 were added to their parents plans. But most of the figures look at 2013 compared to 2014 because it was only then that the ACA fully went into effect.

And if you go forward from last April into the next few years, millions MORE will be covered. But just last year alone, the decrease in uninsured was a very substantial 23% -- very much in line with initial projections.

[zipplewrath]

133. The numbers don't support that

Yes, more children are covered. But there was a huge loss of employer based insurance that it swamped the numbers. We are now at 13ish percent coverage. It will continue to go down if the unemployment numbers continue to improve. But that is an accomplishment of the economy not ACA. Before all is said and done the amount of reduction due to the ACA is going to be somewhere in the 7% range. Unless or until the large states expand medicaid. In the limit, it will get down to 6 - 8% uncovered.... at best. That presumes that employers continue to cover employees at the current rate, which many of them are attempting not to do. You can count on alot of lobbying to create exemptions and loop holes.

[pnwmom]

134. I have no idea what you're even saying now. "We are now at 13ish percent coverage."

And you've provided no links that would support anything you're saying except for a link to numbers from 2007, before the great recession.

[zipplewrath]

135. It's from your own post

Currently the percentage of uninsured Americans is around 13%, down from the 2007 number of 16 percent, and below the 2010 peak of around 18%.

[pnwmom]

136. "13 percent coverage" is the opposite of 13% uninsured. And the quote you cite

was your quote, not mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5643025


But the only comparison that matters is from after the ACA took effect, which was not in 2008. It didn't take full effect till 2013.

[zipplewrath]

109. They asked

You did read the part where they asked for me to respond right?

You realize this isn't the BOG right?

[LawDeeDah]

8. How very sad you would do this.

At least open up your own thread and don't piss on someone's relief and happiness.

How pathetically sad.

[scarystuffyo]

10. Then the OP shouldn't say send them to me if you hear someone criticize the ACA

[strawberries]

11. It was a figure of speach

I was hoping to get more info on RCC, than spewing about what ACA does or doesn't do.

I was also thinking of writing the president, but would he even care at this point

[zipplewrath]

13. So they dont' REALLY wanna hear?

You suggesting they are happy and don't care to hear? This ain't the BOG ya know. I actually give the OP a bit more credit than that.

[scarystuffyo]

16. I understand that but it was a figure of speech you should have left out in your post.

I'm one of the lucky ones who live in a blue state and was covered under the expansion but
there are people who are left out of the system with no coverage that work 2 and even 3 part time jobs.

$250 to $300 a month for a bronze plan isn't affordable for many

[Cha]

37. Please do write the President.. of course he would care, strawberries. So glad for your son & fam!

[zipplewrath]

12. Um, they ASKED

Or did you not read the OP?

[LawDeeDah]

19. '''If someone knows something about RCC please let me know.'''

I guess I missed your knowledge on RCC.

[zipplewrath]

20. I guess you missed this part

"next time someone bashes ACA send them to me"

[LawDeeDah]

22. geezus.

[zipplewrath]

27. Allah

[JaneyVee]

24. Jeezus.

[IronLionZion]

31. It has to start somewhere

the medicaid expansion is a game changer as there are very notable improvements in the states that have implemented it.

The medicaid expansion, subsidies, reforms of the insurance industry, etc. are all building up a constituency of people who will support bigger reforms down the road.

[zipplewrath]

45. I wish there was evidence to support that

"...are all building up a constituency of people who will support bigger reforms down the road."

I wish that were true. But there is little evidence to suggest that people politically make these connections. Which is why you have people who vote against their own interests regularly. Heck, you have people that rail against "government health care" and simultaneously scream "keep your hands off my Medicare.

[IronLionZion]

88. Canada got single payer one province at a time

The European countries didn't have much need for evidence before implementing their universal health reforms, they just had lots and lots of wounded due to world war 2.

Some examples of bigger reforms could be when congress started a program for screenings of breast and cervical cancer for low income women, and it was maddening for these women to find out they have this cancer but not afford the treatment. So those women demanded their representatives allocate funding for treatment too. And they got it.

There was a time when end stage renal disease was a death sentence. Until dialysis was invented, people died from renal disease. Yet since it was expensive and experimental, there was no way for people to get this treatment until our society collectively decided that medicare shall cover dialysis regardless of age. So now young people can get dialysis through Medicare instead of dying quickly the way conservatives would prefer.

Even with medicare itself, there was a time when many elderly just couldn't afford health care so our country implemented a program for our seniors to have universal single payer program funded through a special tax added to our payroll. No politician would dare to end medicare or social security because of the national support for these very socialist liberal programs.

[zipplewrath]

90. Medicare has been around for 50 years

We still don't have single payer. I don't see any evidence that the next 50 years will be any difference. If anything, the fight over ACA will sour any desire on either side of the aisle for a good long time.

[IronLionZion]

96. Medicare has been around for 50 years

So we do have single payer already, for everyone over 65.

I hope it's still in existence 50 years from now. Its not that much of a leap to propose expanding it. After all, Obama expanded Medicaid to cover millions more than before, and its working well in the blue states that have chosen to implement it.

[zipplewrath]

101. Apparently it's a big leap

Because it's been around for 50 years and we still don't have single payer. Heck, the proposed just lowering the age to 50 during the ACA debate and Lieberman of all people opposed it. That doesn't bode well for the future.

[pnwmom]

56. Where did you get your made-up statistic that 50% of people who got "support from the exchanges"

already were qualified for Federal support? It's just not true.

And it isn't the fault of the ACA or the Democrats in Congress that Republican-led states have refused the free Federal funds for Medicaid expansion. Put the blame where it belongs.

[zipplewrath]

108. From when ACA was passed

of the uninsured at the time that the ACA was being debated, 50% of the people were currently eligible for some level of federal support from the feds.

[pnwmom]

116. Link, please. n/t

[zipplewrath]

119. I've given you several

Tell ya what, you give me a link showing me where ANYONE was claiming that the ONLY people expected to be exempt from the mandate due to income were those in state that DIDN'T expand medicaid. Because Kaiser doesn't agree with you.

[pnwmom]

121. No, you haven't, except to the one link with 2006-7 figures. And you're not giving me a link to

Kaiser,either, so I have no idea what you're talking about there.

[zipplewrath]

124. again

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/september/03/faq-on-individual-insurance-mandate-aca.aspx

But I take it YOU have no links to support YOUR claim that NO ONE was expected to be outside of the subsidy unless they were on Medicaid.

[pnwmom]

125. This is a matter of simple logic. The subsidies are calculated and SET to be no more

than 8% of income (lower than that for lower incomes). There are two categories of people for whom that will not be true. One is the group who fell through the crack due to the lack of Medicaid expansion -- they won't get Medicaid, as they were expected to, and yet they don't make enough to get a subsidy, which is 135% of median income.

The other group comprises people whose incomes exceed $92K for a family of four. They are not guaranteed a subsidy keeping their insurance premium to 8% of their income.

[zipplewrath]

132. So you don't have site

Your deducing your point of view even in the presence of evidence from the Kaiser reference that indicates that the exemption was for MORE than just those who would not be covered by the medicaid expansion. If you visit the debate at the time that the ACA was being passed, you'll find extensive discussion about those that would not be covered.

Come back with a site for your point of view and we can continue this discussion.

Who's exempt?

According to HHS, prisoners, undocumented immigrants, and Indian tribal members will be exempt from the penalties. Members of certain religious sects or health care sharing ministries also can apply for a religious exemption.

Other U.S. residents who will be exempt include:

Certain low-income individuals: Those who cannot afford coverage, or live in states that have opted out of the Medicaid expansion;
People who have no plan options in their state's health insurance exchange.

http://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2013/06/27/who-will-be-exempt-from-the-aca-mandate-the-final-list

[treestar]

103. How insensitive

How can you address this to a person whose child has the condition described? And apparently resent that it was found out.

[zipplewrath]

110. Because they asked

You did read that part right?

And did you read any of the exact same questions posted DAYS before you?

[treestar]

128. I can post anything at any time

I could kick a thread from page 20 if I wanted and say the same thing someone else said. There's nothing to stop that on DU unless you think you will find a jury to hide it.

They asked, but you are insensitive in your tone. You could have pointed out that red states have no expanded Medicaid, thereby blocking the advantage the ACA gives to people who make more than qualifies them for Medicaid and less than gets them a good policy. And that is a problem with the ACA that we could address, if only we didn't have Republicans in state houses who got there because we did not get out enough of the vote due to 5 years of complaining that the US Senate did not have enough votes, even in a liberal 2 year term, to make a law that would stop that from happening.

Instead you said "you got yours" which doesn't even make sense in lights of a socialistic type of law. The ACA is the epitome of a giveaway to the right wing people, who are usually the ones who make that statement, being as they have theirs and didn't need the ACA in their opinion, and are even against Medicaid too, since they have theirs and don't care about poor people.

Instead of being angry at your fellow state voters who allowed Republicans to take the state government and ignore the ACA and fail to expand medicaid. Or at least being mad at the Republican governor.

[zipplewrath]

130. So your entire point is about tone?

I started my post with a statement about how I was happy for her son. That was the "tone". I was responding to the "tone" of their post.

[scarystuffyo]

9. I have a brother in NC who works 2 part time jobs but doesn't make enough income to get a

subsidies but also at the same time can't afford the $278 a month they want for
a bronze plan . Should I send him to you?

[strawberries]

14. tell him to move to a blue state

Send him to me if it makes you feel better

[scarystuffyo]

17. I'm done with you

[strawberries]

18. alrighty then nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. He/She should probably edit out that snark. It was uncalled for . Sorry your brother can't

afford what shouldn't be out of reach for anyone especially someone who works two part jobs and that btw is just wrong.

[LawDeeDah]

23. That makes no sense.

Does NC get the expansion for medicaid through ACA? If your republican governor disallowed it, I would suggest you go kick HIS ass and leave people alone that happen to benefit from ACA.

geezus

[Lex]

29. I'm in NC. $278 for a bronze plan? How many people are on the plan?

How much does he make per year? I pay $132 for a very good silver plan.

[scarystuffyo]

33. You get a subsidy

He's by himself

[Lex]

34. So he makes too much money per year to get a subsidy?

[scarystuffyo]

35. too little

[Lex]

38. Oh, so he would qualify for the medicaid expansion if the Republican Gov. hadn't blocked it.

That sucks. So many people are screwed by the Republican governors blocking the medicaid expansion part of the ACA.

[scarystuffyo]

40. Yep

As long as the governor and his family are covered by tax payer funded health insurance
no one else really matters.

[pnwmom]

52. And why do you think that is? You should direct him to this link.

Your brother would qualify for Medicaid since he doesn't make enough for subsidies. But NC has chosen to reject Medicaid.

http://www.ncjustice.org/?q=medicaidexpansion

"Since January 1, 2014, North Carolina has rejected $4.9 million per day that would provide coverage to 500,058 uninsured people. We can make a better choice."

You and your brother should be burning up the phone lines to the governor's office, telling the governor to accept the free Medicaid expansion. Even three years from now, the state will be able to get the funds by chipping in only 10% -- getting $9 dollars for every dollar they put in. That one dollar of cost would be cancelled out by savings from costs the state currently must reimburse hospitals for uninsured patients. There is no logical or financial reason for the state to reject the Medicaid expansion. That's where your and your brother's anger should be directed -- not at the people who support the ACA.

[treestar]

107. Yeah, if they live in a red state and voted blue

I could feel bad for them, but they would not be snarky about it, at least, not at the ACA, but at their governor.

If they voted red then what's their problem? Simple work harder and earn more and get gold-plated insurance and a Mazzerati.

[treestar]

105. Doesn't make enough to get a subsidy?

Or makes too much to get one? What are your objections to the subsidy levels and the tax laws? I bet he pays too much in taxes too, more than people who make less.

[spanone]

21. many friends with pre-existing conditions who are big ACA fans

[pnwmom]

25. I'm glad they they found that cancer before he had symptoms.

One of my relatives also had an incidental finding of kidney cancer, before it had a chance to spread anywhere. He had the kidney removed and had no problems after that, dying many years later of something else.

The best of luck to your son!

[strawberries]

44. thank you thank you

I love this post, thank you!

[GummyBearz]

26. My personal story

My wife is much more hardcore liberal than me and she bashes ACA once per month. Our health insurance bill went up, deductible increased, and it no longer covers the non-oral birth control she had been on for a year. I get to hear about it every 4 weeks... which kind of makes me dislike ACA

[Lex]

30. Welcome to DU. My bill went down by more than half. Deductible is half what it was.

What do you have--a bronze, silver, or gold plan?

[GummyBearz]

36. Thanks

My plan was through my employer, I'd say its somewhere between the silver and gold level. I know I'm super lucky to have had it in the first place, but it was still annoying when they took away certain benefits (non-oral birth control), and increased all the fees on us. I know its mainly the insurance industries' wrong doing, but Obama did promise that people in my position could keep their current plans... so it is irritating that didn't happen

[Lex]

39. Yes, it does suck that your employer didn't keep your current plan

so you could've kept what you had. Taking about the birth control benefits is outrageous, imho.

[strawberries]

43. my insurance went up too

but sometimes you have to give some to get some

[pnwmom]

54. Your old policy had an annual and lifetime limit on benefits. Do you know what they were?

Do you know how easy it used to be to exceed them, if you got in a serious car accident or developed cancer?

Also, insurers of individuals could drop them from coverage when they developed an expensive illness, leaving them with nothing after years of paying premiums.

Your insurance can no longer be dropped and is no longer subject to an annual or lifetime limit. So it's a much better policy than before.

[WillowTree]

63. You don't know that!

Not all plans had annual and lifetime limits. Mine didn't before ACA and still doesn't.

[treestar]

104. BS

Impossible. Or you had really crappy insurance before.

It is based on income, so if your income is high enough to absorb the better coverage, you are in good shape.

[Phentex]

32. I am happy for you...

and happy that it could help your son. I know many people who have benefited and that's what's important. Do I want everyone covered? Yes, and this is a start.

Hope you get good answers for your son's condition.

[Rex]

42. I break it down into the fundamentals. No more do employees have to rely on the boss

for their life insurance. I know most people just pass that over, but trust me if you are working class - it is very important. Separate another power a private business owner can hold over you, to give you more freedom and maybe something affordable.

YEAH, the GOP doesn't like it. Is it the most attempted at repeal law in history? What was it? 54 times? Republicans are NOT for the working class. Not the ones in office or in power. Their ideal economic system sucks.

Hope your son can recover and know a lot of us are extremely happy to get this option. Good vibes for your family.

[True Blue Door]

66. This President has indeed saved many lives, and will save many more.

And conversely, those who tried to stop Obamacare, and continued to spew propaganda against it, would rather those people saved by this program were dead. That message needs to be communicated.

[grahamhgreen]

77. Wait til we have single payer!!!

[CakeGrrl]

122. You mean by laying back and letting the GOP take the Senate?

Who knew the most ingenious path to single-payer was 'voting one's conscience' and letting the Teabag GOP control the House and Senate?

Not saying it's you, but that's the attitude I've seen out here.

[grahamhgreen]

127. No I mean by proposing it as often as the GOP proposes repealing Obamacare, instead of

saying "it'll never pass the house" whenever a good idea is proposed

[LWolf]

99. Here I am.

I wasn't going to bash the ACA. I'm delighted that your son survived. I'm a mother of 2 sons, and I'm grateful that one of them has insurance provided by his employer. The other? Insurance through the ACA.

I think I'll bash the ACA for a moment. Simply because I can, and after a long, stressful day that is not over yet, the suggestion that there's something wrong with criticizing the ACA pisses me off.

Why? Because it's not about affordable care. It's about insurance. Insurance that we pay for. And then we pay copays and deductibles on top of that. Or, for those like me, and like my son, we go without actual care because after we pay the premiums there's nothing left for copays or deductibles.

Oh, but...subsidies!!!!

Except that there are plenty of people who don't qualify for the subsidies, yet still can't afford the copays and deductibles.

For those reasons, the ACA is not the answer. The answer is universal, high-quality, national health CARE, abundantly available, free at point of service, paid for 100% by taxes.

Your son...I'm so glad he got the care he needed. I'm wondering, though, if it's the insurance, or if it is the accident that is responsible for the visit that caught the RCC. I'm wondering if it might have been caught sooner with a better health CARE system that got everyone in for regular check-ups.

But that's just me.

I do wish you, and your son, the best of health, in whatever way you can get it.

[zipplewrath]

111. Duck

Apparently you're not actually suppose to respond to this call out.